DRAFT SCOPING REPORT COMMENTS
LITTLE SWIFT INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 1
OBJECTION AGAINST APPLICATION FOR MINING RIGHT AND COMMENTS ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, ACT 28 OF 2008
LITTLE SWIFT INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD & 530 OTHERS OBJECTORS
BONGANI MINERALS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER WC 30/5/1/1/2/10110MR
PROPERTIES PORTION 1 FARM 297; PORTION OF PORTION 21 OF THE FARM NAMAQUASFONTEIN 76; AND PORTION OF REMAING EXTENT OF PORTION 6 OF THE FARM NAMAQUASFONTEIN 76
This Objection is submitted on behalf of Little Swift Investments (Pty) Ltd and 473 other Objectors (hereinafter referred to as the “Objectors”) under powers of attorney and it constitutes a formal objection against an application for a mining right, WC30/5/1/2/2/10110MR (hereinafter referred to as the “Application”). The Objectors are interested and affected parties to the aforementioned application.
THE OBJECTORS
1. A complete list of the 531 Objectors is attached to this Objection as Annexure A.
2. The Objectors include landowners, key stakeholders, residents in the area and other interested and affected parties.
3. It is recorded that the following landowners’ properties (19 farms) are located within, adjacent to or in close proximity to the mine application area:
2
3.1. Little Swift Investments (Pty) Ltd – Portion 1 of Farm Namaquasfontein 297. This property is earmarked as the epicentre of the envisaged mine. Attention is drawn to the fact that the company’s name has been changed to Moutonshoek Investments (Pty) Ltd;
3.2. Namaquasfontein Boerdery Trust – Portions 4 and 5 of Farm Namaquasfontein 76, Piketberg;
3.3. HP Smit & Seuns – Remainder of the Farm Namaquasfontein 78; Portion 1 of the Farm Namaquasfontein 77; and Portion 1 of the Farm Namaquasfontein 76;
3.4. Wendy Janet Smit – Remainder of the Farm Namaquasfontein 76;
3.5. Annalene Van Niekerk Family Trust – Portion 3 of the Farm Namaquasfontein 76;
3.6. Jacobus Johannes Smit – Remainder of Portion 2 of the Farm Wilgenhoutdrift 48;
3.7. Windheuwel Trust - remainder of Portion 3 of the Farm Wilgenhoutdrift 48;
3.8. Riviera Trust - Portion 6 of the Farm Wilgenhoutdrift 48;
3.9. Wilgerbosdrift (Pry) Ltd – the Farm Wilgerbosdrift 51; and Portions 4, 5, 6 and 8 and the Remainder of Farm Ezelsfontein 47. (Kindly note that this Objection is submitted on behalf of Wilgerbosdrift (Pty) Ltd in terms of an arrangement with its attorneys-of-record, Webber Wentzel)
4. The rest of the Objectors as Interested and Affected Parties include-
(i) 321 Farmworkers and their families on the above and other farms;
3
(ii) the Karookop Primary School with 145 learners and their parents;
(iii) the !Aman // Aes Traditional authority;
(iv) Residents from Redelinghuys, Piketberg and Elands Bay;
(v) Cape Town Tourism;
(vi) Velddrif Chamber of Commerce;
(vii) Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association of SA;
5. The Objectors for all intents and purposes are directly interested and affected parties.
6. The Objectors are aware of the fact that Karsten Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (the registered owner of portion 2 of the Farm Namaquasfontein No 76; portion 13 of the Farm Namaquasfontein No 76; and portion 5 of the Farm Wilgenhoutdrift 48, has also submitted an objection in its own name against the Application by Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd.
7. With regard to the specific landowners the following is recorded:-
7.1. The farms owned by Moutonshoek Investments (Pty) Ltd and Namaquasfontein Boerdery Trust constitute what is known as the Moutonshoek Stud Farm.
7.1.1. Portion 1 of Farm 297 belonging to Moutonshoek Investments in its totality (175 Ha) would be replaced by an opencast tungsten mine if Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd is granted the mining right applied for.
7.1.2. It holds significant and well-documented socio-economical, cultural, ecological and historical value for the Piketberg 4
Region. Most importantly it forms part of the catchment area for the Krom Antonies River.
7.1.3. Active and self-sustained farming activities have been in existence for more than 300 years on the farms.
7.1.4. Since 1993 it hosts one of the best known and internationally acclaimed horse breeding studs in South Africa comprising 230 thoroughbred horses accommodated in 69 camps. The Objectors produce much sought after world class yearlings for racing in South Africa and abroad.
7.1.5. In addition, a total of 101 hectares on the Properties are under citrus, lucerne, teff, oats and wine grapes. Grapes are provided to Testalonga Wines, Eendekuil, Piketberg.
7.1.6. The Objectors also jointly own a cattle herd producing 28 tons of meat per year.
7.1.7. The farming activities provide work and a source of income to 135 employees (including seasonal workers). Accommodation on the farms is provided to 23 families.
7.1.8. The properties form part of the Moutonshoek Protected Environment.
7.1.9. The Properties are totally dependent upon groundwater for all intents and purposes;
7.1.10. These specific Objectors have made significant investments in their properties and farming activities. • New accommodation and buildings • foaling and yearling stables 5
• new investments in bloodstock 4 imported stallions and 90 mares • Dam and irrigation • Horse camps • Architect designed stable/office/hospital complex and stables • 45 Ha under centre pivot points for horse feed, and cattle feed
7.1.11. Significant future expansions are also expected, including – • establishing it as the country’s top horse breeder (currently consistently under the top 10) • wine production; • meat (beef) producer; • expansion of horse and cattle feed production • expansion of table grape production
7.1.12. All of the above is now under threat by the Applicant seeking to establish an open cast mine to mine for tungsten in the area. Not only will the envisaged mining operations severely and detrimentally affect the Objectors’ agricultural activities and its considerable present and future investments, but also the security and livelihood of its employees, all local people. To satisfy its own greed the Applicant is willing to deprive these employees not only of their income, but also their upliftment and empowerment as explained in the preceding paragraphs.
7.1.13. It was noted that the Applicant considers “relocating” the Objectors, the farm workers and their families and 230 thoroughbred horses. Already at this stage of the Objection the Objectors wish to emphasize that they will not relocate under any circumstances at all. They will continue to earn their living as they have done for almost 30 years now, and 6
they will continue to look after their employees and their families.
7.2. Annalene van Niekerk Family Trust represented by JJC van Niekerk
7.2.1. It is currently being occupied by the 4th generation.
7.2.2. It is an active agricultural farm. In fact, the leading buchu producing farm in the Country.
7.2.3. A significant investment was made by installing solar panels to power irrigation.
7.2.4. It is considered to convert specific parts of the farm for eco- tourism purposes and also to introduce fauna indigenous to the area.
7.2.5. All of the above is now under threat by the Applicant seeking to establish an open cast mine to mine for tungsten in the area. Not only will the envisaged mining operations severely and detrimentally affect this Objector’s agricultural activities and its considerable present and future investments, but also the security and livelihood of its employees, all local people
7.3. Wendy Janet Smit
7.3.1. The farm is being farmed by the 6th generation and it has been in the family since 1770.
7.3.2. It is an active farm producing a living and income for the owners and its employees.
7.3.3. Some of the land is rented by HP Smit & Seuns (also an objector) as part of their farming activities. 7
7.3.4. All of the above is now under threat by the Applicant seeking to establish an open cast mine to mine for tungsten in the area. Not only will the envisaged mining operations severely and detrimentally affect this Objector’s agricultural activities and its considerable present and future investments, but also the security and livelihood of its employees, all local people.
7.4. Wilgerbosdrift (Pty) Ltd
7.4.1. The farm Wilgerbosdrift is the home of the 21-year old Wilgerbosdrift Racing Horse Stud, one of the leading stud farms in the country. It was acquired in 1998 by Mrs Mary Slack.
7.4.2. It is home to 300 thoroughbred racing horses. The most notable yearling sold by the stud at the yearling sales in 2005 was Wonder Lawn who still holds the record for the most expensive yearling ever to have been sold in this country, namely R3,300,000. Such is the class of horses bred on this farm.
7.4.3. The farm has produced many champions like Northern Chorus who has won the Met in 2019. It is currently placed 2nd in the ranking of South Africa’s top breeding farms.
7.4.4. Farmworkers has a 2% share on all sales of horses. Farmworkers also owns their own mares, and all produce from these mares are sold for the benefit of the workers. Recently they sold a horse called Nassa for R800,000. This horse is currently running in Hong Kong.
8
7.4.5. The farm was acquired for the purposes of horse breeding purely because of its location in terms of climate and the soil’s mineral content.
7.4.6. The farm provides employment for 57 employees and accommodation for 90 persons.
7.4.7. A portion of the farm recently has been transformed into a yearling complex with stables and paddocks resulting in an increase in employees. Housing accommodation has been upgraded and boreholes have been equipped with state of the art speed drives to conserve the scarce water resources in the area.
7.4.8. The farm also retains good fillies that are used as training horses all over the country and overseas, creating employment opportunities for many workers.
7.4.9. Future expansions include • the breeding of more horses for the overseas market where different circumstances prevail. • the expansion of horse feed production to render the farm independent in this regard. • taking part in major horse racing events in Melbourne, Australia and Dubai
7.4.10. Horses are very sensitive to any pollutants in drinking water. The farm had to replace all their water drinking lines due to baboons contaminating the dams. It is a fact that bone growth in young horses and especially foals will be affected by micro- changes in water through pollution. The opencast tungsten mine with operations 24/7 will pollute the water. Blasting would also have a detrimental impact upon the horses conduct and growth and would affect their hearing. The 9
inevitable result would be for the farm to close its doors leaving many persons without an income and accommodation.
7.4.11. All of the above is now under threat by the Applicant seeking to establish an open cast mine to mine for tungsten in the area. Not only will the envisaged mining operations severely and detrimentally affect this Objector’s agricultural activities and its considerable present and future investments, but also the security and livelihood of its employees, all local people.
7.5. Employees on various farms and seasonal employees from the area: Any adverse impacts upon the affected farms by the proposed mining would have a detrimental impact upon all farm employees and their families. Some have been employed for 20 years and longer. They have been trained for what they do, especially looking after thoroughbred horses, and they would not be able to find similar work in the area. They would also lose out on all socio-economic benefits they currently enjoy and provided for by their employers. They simply do not understand why they have to endure this to make way for Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd and its mine workers.
7.6. Other interested and affected parties: They represent a diverse spectrum of parties. Parties whose livelihood in some way or the other is dependent upon produce produced by the farms, such as consumers, agents, producers and customers.
8. No accurate figures can be given, but even a conservative estimation of the value of the affected properties, their products, jobs provided, socio-economic benefits, etc., could run into hundreds of millions of Rands, if not billions.
9. Based upon the above all the Objectors have every right to object to the application for a mining right and this Objection constitutes a vehement opposition to the envisaged mining operations. 10
THE APPLICATION
10. Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant” ) applied for a mining right in terms of section 22 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act 28 of 2002), (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to mine for tungsten and molybdenum on • the remaining extent of portion 6 of the Farm Namaquasfontein 76, Piketberg; • a portion of portion 21 of the Farm Namaquasfontein No 76, Piketberg; and • the whole of portion 1 of the Farm 297, Piketberg. (hereinafter referred to as the "Affected Properties") This application was accepted by the Department of Mineral Resources: Western Cape Region (hereinafter referred to as the “DMR”) as conveyed in its letter of 13 December 2018 ("Acceptance Letter").
11. It is recorded that on 14 January 2019, the DMR was notified by the undersigned that the Acceptance Letter was flawed in that it did not correctly reflect the Affected Properties in respect of which the application was made due to the fact that portion 1 of the Farm 297 was omitted therefrom. No response in this regard was forthcoming from the DMR. On 4 February 2019 the Applicant’s consultant, Greenmined Environmental (hereinafter referred to as “Greenmined”) provided the undersigned with another (rectified) letter which is also dated 13 December 2018 although it does not specifically recall the prior letter that was issued.
12. In terms of the Acceptance Letter, the Applicant is directed by the DMR to, amongst others, consult with the landowners, lawful occupiers and any interested and affected parties. The DMR further advised (in paragraph 2(c) of the Acceptance Letter) that the consultation process “does not imply issuing letters and requesting parties to indicate whether they support your proposed project or not. It includes among others an extensive process of giving and discussing the specific details of the project, giving the interested and affected parties an opportunity to table their comments, objections and support. It also involves 11
your written responses and specific commitments made in dealing with issues raised during consultation.”1
13. It is recorded that Greenmined on 4 December 2018 submitted a general background information document ("BID") to by-them-identified interested and affected parties. It is recorded that this BID was submitted 9 days before the application was even accepted by the DMR and the DMT issued instructions to be complied with by the Applicant. Addressees were informed by Greenmined that “If we do not receive any comments from you on or before 5 February 2019, it will be accepted that you do not have any objections/comments with regard to the project and do not require any further documentation.” In other words, no reaction would be interpreted as no objections or support for the application. They (perhaps conveniently) failed to take into account that the DMR issued a guideline directing that the consultation process “is not expected to be discontinued after the 30 day deadline for the submission of the scoping report because a high level report is required, and further in depth consultation is required to more substantially inform the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Programme in order to comply with section 39 (3) (b) (ii) and (iii) of the Act read with regulations 50 (c) (d) and (f).” It is therefore evident that persons may still register as interested and affected parties and object against the Application, despite what the Applicant’s consultant communicated.
14. Greenmined repeated in its draft scoping report that was submitted for comments (and which will be dealt with in paragraph [79]) that 298 persons were notified of the BID. The Objectors were informed by reliable sources that Greenmined apparently sent 254 emails of which 93 “bounced” or did not reach the recipients. Based upon this it is believed only 137 persons were notified and not 298 persons as alleged. If this holds true, the notification by Greenmined may not have been as extensive as they would hope and also fails to constitute a process of public participation as directed by DMR.
1 Own emphasis. 12
15. The DMR, in its published general guidelines, follows the findings of the Constitutional Court in Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others V Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2011 (4) SA 113 (CC) pertaining to consultation by applicants with landowners, communities and interested and affected parties. In these guidelines it is mentioned that the “the intention of the Act is to make the application known in order to afford communities and interested and affected parties an opportunity to raise comments and concerns before the application can be processed further".
16. The Applicant is reminded of the fact that the salient points in the Constitutional Court’s decision in this regard were and still are: • the purpose of the consultation is to provide landowners or occupiers with the necessary information on everything that is to be done, so that they can make an informed decision in relation to the representations to be made • The consultation process and its results are an integral part of the fairness process because the decision cannot be fair if the administrator did not have full regard to precisely what happened during the consultation process in order to determine whether the consultation was sufficient to render the grant of the application. • The consultation process required by the Act requires that the applicant must: inform that his application for mining rights on the owner's land has been accepted for consideration by the regional manager of DMR; inform in sufficient detail of what the mining operation will entail on the land, in order for interested and affected party to assess what impact the mining will have on the use of the land; consult with the landowner with a view to reach an agreement to the satisfaction of both parties in regard to the impact of the proposed miming operation; and submit the result of the consultation process to the regional manager of DMR within 30 days of receiving notification to consult.
13
17. Further according to the DMR, consultation must include:- • The observance of the guidelines published by the Department of Land Affairs in cases where consultation with communities is concerned; and
• Meeting with the community and landowner and the interested and affected parties, which meetings must include dealing with the requirements set by the Constitutional Court.
18. The only process in which the Objectors were engaged with regard to the Application was the receipt of the BID and (after registration as an interested and affected party), the draft scoping report ("DSR") to which further reference is made below. It will be argued below that these documents alone cannot, in the wider sense, be seen as a consultation process as envisaged by the DMR.
19. In furtherance of the argument articulated in paragraph 18 above, it is furthermore submitted by the Objectors that the Applicant:- • did not arrange for any public meeting to discuss those matters as instructed by the Constitutional Court and the DMR;
• apart from a generic BID and DSR, failed to provide substantial, material and relevant information pertaining to the Application; and
• affixed a notice inconspicuously on a fence along the road, 11 km from the proposed mining area.
20. It is the Objectors’ contention that the consultation or public participation process is materially flawed and the DMR should reject the Application on this basis alone.
THE APPLICANT
21. Apart from the fact that the Applicant is identified as Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd, absolutely no further information is provided regarding the Applicant.
14
22. The Objectors are aware of the fact that since 2005 the Applicant has tried its utmost to enter the Moutonshoek area to prospect or mine for tungsten.
23. The Verlorenvlei Coalition in its objection against the 2009 prospecting recorded the following:
• the Applicant was described as a 51% BEE owned company. Its shareholders were- Riviera Tungsten (Pty) Ltd – 49% T da Silva Pikwane - 37.74% POR Sehunelo - 10.20% Dikgosi Diamonds CC - 2.55% LN Kau - 0.51%
• Riviera Tungsten (Pty) Ltd, was owned by El Nino Mining (Pty) Ltd who in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Batla Minerals South Africa (Pty) Ltd. The latter apparently is a French resource investment company engaged in the mining sector. The Company has diamond operations in Lesotho, and is specialized in the research, exploration and operation of diamond mines. The Company apparently has prospecting rights for a tungsten/molybdenum/rare earths deposit in South Africa (?). The Company’s operations are managed by El Nino Mining (Pty) Ltd, South Africa.
24. Furthermore, the Objectors have no information regarding the Applicant’s technical and financial capabilities.
25. It is not possible for the Objectors to form any opinion on the status and abilities of the Applicant, its shareholders or the latter’s shareholders. In fact, it would appear that the Applicant is nothing more than a shell and a front company for El Nino Mining (Pty) Ltd. Why else would Batla Minerals (Pty) Ltd publicly state that it “has prospecting rights for a tungsten/molybdenum/rare earths deposit in South Africa”?
15
INFORMATION REQUIRED AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED
26. Any application for a mining right in terms of the Act essentially has two components – • an application for a mining right in terms of section 22 of the Act; and
• an application for environmental authorisation in terms of section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (No 107 of 1998) (hereinafter referred to as “NEMA”).
This is confirmed by Section 22(1) of the Act – “Any person who wishes to apply to the Minister for a mining right must simultaneously apply for an environmental authorisation.”
27. The environmental authorisation application requires of the Applicant to first submit a draft scoping report (which it did), and also the environmental impact assessment and environmental management report. All interested and affected parties must be afforded an opportunity to object to and submit comments pertaining to these documents. The mining right application is different from the NEMA application.
28. In terms of section 23(1) of the Act, the Minister must, subject to subsection 23(4), grant a mining right if- (a) the mineral can be mined optimally in accordance with the mining work programme; (b) the applicant has access to financial resources and has the technical ability to conduct the proposed mining operations optimally; (c) the financing plan is compatible with the intended mining operation and the duration thereof, (d) the mining will not result in unacceptable pollution, ecological degradation or damage to the environment, (e) the applicant has provided financially or otherwise for the prescribed social and labour plan, 16
(f) the applicant has the ability to comply with the relevant provisions of the Mine Health and Safety Act,1996 (Act No 29 0f 1996); (g) the applicant is not in contravention of any other relevant provision of the Act; and (h) the granting of such right will further the objects referred to in section 2(d) and (f) and in accordance with the charter contemplated in section 100 and the prescribed social and labour plan.
29. The Applicant must comply with the aforesaid granting criteria.
30. In addition to the above the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter refer to as the “Regulations”) contains certain requirements.
31. In terms of Regulation 10 an application for a mining right, amongst others, must contain:- • the mineral or minerals for which the right is required; • the period for which the right is required; • a mining work programme contemplated in regulation 11; • a social and labour plan contemplated in regulation 46; • detailed documentary proof of the applicant's technical ability or access thereto to conduct the mining activities and to mitigate and rehabilitate relevant environmental impacts; • documentary proof that the applicant has the ability to comply with relevant provisions of the Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 (Act 29 of 1996); • a description of how the applicant's technical ability will be provided by making use of in-house expertise, contractors and consultants on the proposed mining operation; • budget and documentary proof of the applicant's financial ability or access thereto; and • a list of existing rights or a list of existing rights and permits (as the case may be) held by the applicant, to be compiled in a table format that 17
indicates the region and location with regard to the land name and the existing right or permit number for each mineral within the Republic.
32. Regulation 11 compels the Applicant to submit a mining works programme containing or dealing with and containing details about the following:
32.1. Regulation 11(1)(d): Details of the identified mineral deposit concerned with regard to the type of mineral or minerals to be mined, its locality, extent, depth, geological structure, mineral content and mineral distribution.
The Applicant in other words is required to provide a detailed description of the identified mineral deposit concerned with regard to the type of mineral to be mined, its locality, extent, depth, geological structure, mineral content and mineral distribution, supported by a tabulated categorization of proven and probable reserves, cross referenced to supporting reserve plans over the area applied for.
The aforesaid information must include and be cross referenced to a mineral resource map and include- (i) the mineral to be mined; (ii) the locality of the mineral deposit in relation to the nearest town/city; (iii) the locality of the mineral deposit relative to the mining area, (iv) the information required in terms of regulation 8 in cases where the application was preceded by a prospecting right, (v) existing exploration results and supporting geological reports, (vi) a brief description of the geological structure of the mineral deposit; (vii) the size of the deposit, (viii) the depth of the mineral deposit below surface; (ix) details of proven and probable reserves, taking into consideration previous mining and extraction rates, 18
(x) estimated grades, and a reserve statement that can be understood relative to the mineral resource map.
32.2. Regulation 11(1)(e): Details of the market for, the market’s requirements and pricing in respect of, the mineral concerned. The aforesaid information should typically include, but should not be limited to- (i) A list of products and their proportionate quantities (ii) A list of product consumers, (iii) an indication of whether the market is local, regional, and/or international.
32.3. Regulation 11(1)(f): Details with regard to the applicable timeframes and scheduling of the various implementation phases of the proposed mining operation, and a technically justified estimate of the period required for the mining of the mineral deposit concerned. The applicant is required to provide detail with regard to the applicable (i) timeframes and scheduling of the various implementation phases of the intended mining operation, and a technically justified estimate of the period required for the mining of the mineral deposit concerned. (ii) The various construction and implementation phases from the planning stage up to the commencement of full production, (iii) A production forecast based on the reserve statement and the expected extraction, recovery and residue rates, which explains the sources of production over the period reflected in the cash flow forecast. (iv) A justification, based on proven and probable reserves and on production rates of the period over which the mine is expected to remain in production.
32.4. Regulation 11(1)(g)(i): Details and costing of the mining technique, mining technology and production rates applicable to the proposed mining operation. Compliance with the aforesaid regulation requires the 19
Applicant to provide the basic design and costing of the mining operation, which information must include – (i) A map indicating the basic mine design together with a description of how, and in what sequence, the mineral reserve will be extracted; (ii) The specific mining techniques to be used; (iii) The position of access roads, shafts or declines, workshops, offices and stores, pumping facilities, primary development or pit design, processing plant locality, overburden and residue deposition sites, topsoil storage sites, stockpiles, waste dumps, and any other basic mine design features; (iv) A description of any specific engineering constraints that may be anticipated in accessing and extracting the mineral resource, such as groundwater management, flooding, surface protection, fly rock risks, seismicity, or any other identified constraints; and (v) Information as to whether the mining operation or part thereof is to be contracted out.
32.5. Regulation 11(1)(g)(ii): Details and costing of the technological process applicable to the extraction and preparation of the mineral or minerals to comply with market requirements.
32.6. Regulation 11 (1)(g)(iii): Details and costing of the technical skills and expertise and associated labour implications required to conduct the proposed mining operation. Compliance requires that this section is compatible with the information contained in the Social and Labour Plan.
32.7. Regulation 11 (1) (g) (iv): - Details and costing of regulatory requirements in terms of the Act and other applicable law (i.e. NEMA), relevant to the proposed mining operation, such as environmental management and rehabilitation costs.
32.8. Regulation 11 (1) (g) (viii): - provisions for the execution of the social and labour plan. 20
33. The above compulsory information and facts to be provided by the Applicant is material information and relevant to making an informed decision when objecting and commenting on the Application. The Objectors and all other interested and affected parties are entitled to it, also those landowners who apparently has consented to the Applicant’s intended mining operations. Without this important and relevant information, the Objectors are not able to comment meaningfully and in an informed manner. The Applicant’s and the DMR’s attention is, once again, drawn to the following:
• The DMR has directed the Applicant in terms of the Acceptance Letter on 13 December 2018 that the consultation process is an extensive process of giving and discussing the specific details of the proposed project. It is contended by the Objectors that reference is made to details of the nature referred to above and not merely those that relate to the environmental authorisation.
• The purpose of the consultation is to provide interested and affected parties with the necessary information on everything that is to be done, so that they can make an informed decision in relation to the representations to be made;
• The provision of all relevant information and its result are an integral part of the fairness process.
• The Applicant must inform all interested and affected parties in sufficient detail of what the mining operation will entail on the land, in order for interested and affected party to assess what impact the mining will have on the use of their land.
• The Applicant is obliged to meeting with the interested and affected parties to allow discussions regarding the requirements in connection with the mining right application.
21
34. Neither the Objectors nor any other interested and affected party has been provided with a copy of the mining right application and its supporting documentation as provided for in the Act and the Regulations.
35. At the request of the Objectors a communication was sent to Greenmined on 29 January 2019 (copying the DMR) , enquiring as follows –
(i) It is trite that a scoping report required in terms of Regulation 21 of the NEMA EIA Regulations is a forerunner of the environmental impact assessment report. Should it then be the Objectors’ understanding that the consultation process would only focus upon the NEMA scoping report and environmental impact assessment report?
(ii) No indication could be found in the documents that I&AP’s were also invited to submit comments on the mining right application, or any indication that the complete application is available upon request or on their website.
(iii) The application, if duly submitted, in terms of regulation 10 must contain substantive and material information. Information that is imperative to inform any I&AP of the proposed activity and compliance with regulation 10 (1)(a) to (n). Without this information being made available it simply would not be possible for any I&AP to meaningfully comment on the application.
(iv) Section 10 of the MPRDA is obligatory in that members of the public must get an opportunity to submit comments on the application within a certain time period. In this case the members of the public were not afforded such opportunity and are only allowed to comment on a draft scoping report in terms of NEMA.
(v) According to paragraph 2(c) of the Acceptance Letter the consultation process “does not imply issuing letters and requesting affected parties to indicate whether they support your proposed project or not. It 22
includes among others an extensive process of giving and discussing the specific details of the proposed project, giving the interested and affected parties an opportunity to table their comments, objections and support.” The question begs when will the Applicant then make the application available to interested and affected parties to consider and comment on?
(vi) Is it the intention of the Applicant to provide I&AP’s only with an opportunity to comment upon the draft scoping report? If not, when will all material information be made available to enable I&AP’s to make informed comments?
36. Greenmined, through its in-house legal advisor responded to the above communication on 4 February 2019, and informed as follows (own bold emphasis):-
(i) Par 1: The BID (Background Information Document) is, as the name suggests, a document issued for information purposes only and as a courtesy to notify all potential Interested and Affected Persons (I&AP’s) of the proposed application to be submitted. In this document the proposed project is summarized to inform the potential I&AP’s that the application is to be submitted in due course and in the event that they would like to receive preliminary information regarding the project as
well as progress thereof they can register as an I&AP.
(i) Par 2: “the Regional Manager must, in the prescribed manner, within 14 days after accepting an application lodged in terms of section 22 make known that an application for a mining right has been accepted in respect of the land in question and call upon interested and affected persons to submit their comments regarding the application within 30 days from the date of the notice”
(ii) Par 5: “It is therefore clear that the onus was not on Greenmined Environmental, on behalf of the applicant, to inform the potential or 23
registered I&AP’s that the application has been accepted but rather the responsibility of the Regional Manager of the DMR “
(iii) Par 8: “Subregulation (3) provides that potential or registered interested and affected parties, including the competent authority, may be provided with an opportunity to comment on reports and plans contemplated in subregulation (1) prior to submission of an application but must be provided with an opportunity to comment on such reports once an application has been submitted to the competent authority. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant was not obligated to provide the I&AP’s the opportunity to comment on the reports prior to the application being lodged with the DMR. The function of the BID, as well as advertisements, is specifically to notify the I&AP’s that an application will be submitted in due course and that they can register as an I&AP.
(iv) Par 11: “Please note that the mining right application itself is not available to the public, as it contains confidential information of the applicant. All reports however, from date of application, must be made available to the public, hence the public participation process”
(v) Par 12: “As mentioned in clause 3 above it is not the applicant’s responsibility to provide all I&AP’s with the acceptance letter, however when you requested same from us it was provided to you without hesitation. In the meantime, the DMR has provided us with amended acceptance letters in terms of the MPRDA end NEMA, which is attached hereto for your attention and ease of reference.”
(vi) Par 14(ii): “The application documentation is privileged and will not be made available to the public.” and Par 14(v): “The applications are not being withheld, but it contains confidential information of our client. The potential and registered I&AP’s received ample time to comment on the draft scoping report”
24
37. Greenmined’s response can be summarised as follows:
(i) It was under no obligation to provide a copy of the Acceptance Letter due to the fact that it was a function of the DMR.
(ii) Despite being instructed by the DMR to “give and discuss” details of the proposed project, Greenmined and/or the Applicant decided to only provide the courtesy BID and a draft scoping report.
(iii) It is the responsibility of the DMR to call upon I&AP’s to submit their comments regarding the application. It therefore follows that the DMR must make the application available.
(iv) Despite the fact that according to Greenmined the DMR must make the application available, it and/or the Applicant has decided that the application cannot be made available because it contains confidential information of the Applicant, and because Greenmined regarded it as privileged and will not be made available to the public. The Objectors no longer have the status of an interested and affected party but is now regarded as a member of the general public. All of the aforementioned then culminates in Greenmined’s final recordal that “The applications are not being withheld, but it contains confidential information of our client”
(v) It is recorded that despite its stance regarding the mining right application as set out, it did not have any problem with supplying the application for environmental authorisation to the Objectors, neither was it regarded as being the responsibility of the DMR.
(vi) Greenmined and/or the Applicant opted to ignore the instructions by the DMR in terms of Section 22(4) of the Act by not consulting in the prescribed manner. They did not give and discuss the specific details of the proposed mining operations.
25
38. Greenmined’s response is abstruse and confusing, to put it mildly. The Objectors could find absolutely no provision in the Act or the Regulations that an application submitted to the DMR is confidential. If it is, what would then be the purpose of a public participation process if I&AP’s are deprived of the opportunity to peruse and consider an application and to comment on it. In fact, the only references to confidentiality relates to the conduct of the Minerals and Petroleum Board, data flowing from petroleum exploration and production, data provided by the Council for Geoscience, and data regarding proper records of mining activities and proper financial records in connection with the mining activities, after a mining right has been granted and the mine being in operation. The Act also contains no references to privileged or classified.
39. The Objectors are at odds with Greenmined's contention that the Application is confidential or privileged. By adopting this stance, it unreasonably withholds substantive and/or material information from any and all I&AP’s. It is accordingly impossible for the Objectors and others to meaningfully object and comment on the Application.
40. Ironically enough, the very same Applicant on five previous occasions did make its applications available to I&AP’s to peruse and comment on.
HISTORY
41. It is the Objectors’ submission that the events preceding the Application should be taken into account since these events have a bearing upon the Application.
42. Although the Applicant would wish to downplay the history and would argue that this application is a “new” application and should be considered afresh, it is the Objectors’ submission that this application cannot be seen in isolation, but should be dealt with, with due cognisance of three previous prospecting right applications and two previous unsuccessful mining right applications submitted by the Applicant in respect of the same properties to which the Application relates.
26
43. These applications were as follows:
(i) A prospecting right application submitted by the Applicant during September 2005. This application was rejected on grounds of pollution concerns;
(ii) The second prospecting right application submitted by the Applicant on or about September 2006. This application was granted on 3 April 2007 but was taken on judicial review by the Objectors. The right lapsed before the review could be finalised;
(iii) The first mining right application WC 30/5/1/2/2/328 MR submitted by the Applicant on 25 March 2009. After vigorous objections clearly indicating deficiencies in the application and related documentation and the apparent inability to complete a proper environmental impact assessment, this application was withdrawn by the Applicant;
(iv) The second mining right application WC 30/5/1/2/2/385 MR submitted by the Applicant on 28 September 2009. After vigorous objections clearly indicating deficiencies in the application and related documentation, this application was also withdrawn by the Applicant; and
(v) A third prospecting right application under WC30/5/1/1/2/434PR dated 31 March 2010. This prospecting right was granted by the DMR on 1 July 2011 but was never exercised. The Applicant’s applications for consent use (to be submitted to the relevant local authority having jurisdiction) to conduct prospecting right operations on the properties in question were refused. It is the Objectors’ information that the owner of portion 1 of Farm 297 again would not consent to any application for consent use on its property to mine for tungsten. It is also recorded that prospecting right 434PR expired on 30 June 2014.
27
44. It is unknown to the Objectors why the Applicant persists in its endeavours to obtain a mining right in respect of the Affected Properties whilst it was, in the past, met with so many obstacles and objections.
MOUTONSHOEK PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT
45. It is common knowledge that two of the Affected Properties, (namely Portion 1 of the Farm 297 and Portion 21 of the Farm Namaquasfontein), are located within the demarcated Moutonshoek Protected Environment.
46. On 20 April 2018, Provincial Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning in the Western Cape, under section 28(1)(a)(i) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act 57 of 2003), declared a protected environment on 21 different farm portions. (Provincial Notice 56 of 2018, Provincial Gazette 7916 of 20 April 2018).
47. Cape Nature informed as follows:
• The public participation process for the Moutonshoek Protected Environment was started on 15 January 2016 and advertised in the Provincial Gazette. In addition, the provincial notice was published in two national newspapers as is required by Section 33 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003.
• As required by Section 32 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, the necessary state departments were consulted. These included the National Minister of Environmental Affairs, The Department of Mineral Resources, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, South African Heritage Resources Agency, the Department of Agriculture, Berg River Municipality, the Regional Land Claims Commission and the South African National Biodiversity Institute. All comments received up until the 10th of April 2016 were taken into account.
28
• As required as part of the consultation process, the Moutonshoek Protected Environment was presented to the Joint Planning Task Team (JPTT) on the 29th of September 2017. The public participation process for the approval of the Management Plan was competed mid-March 2018 with notices having been published in the Sunday Times, City Press and Rapport on 11 February 2018. No objections to the Management Plan were received through these processes.
• There were no objections received during the public participation process and the Protected Environment was declared on 20 April 2018.
48. The purpose of declaring the area as a protected environment is encapsulated in Section 17 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (herein after referred to as the "Protected Areas Act"), namely-
• to protect ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes in a system of protected areas; • to preserve the ecological integrity of those areas; • to conserve biodiversity in those areas; • to protect areas representative of all ecosystems, habitats and species naturally occurring in South Africa; • to protect South Africa’s threatened or rare species; • to protect an area which is vulnerable or ecologically sensitive; • to assist in ensuring the sustained supply of environmental goods and services; • to provide for the sustainable use of natural and biological resources; • to create or augment destinations for nature-based tourism; • to manage the interrelationship between natural environmental biodiversity, human settlement and economic development; • generally, to contribute to human, social, cultural, spiritual and economic development; or 29
• to rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of endangered and vulnerable species.
49. Section 48 of the Protected Areas Act prohibits mining in a protected environment. In terms of this section no person may, despite other legislation, conduct mining in a protected environment without the written permission of the Minister for national environmental management and the Cabinet member responsible for minerals and energy affairs.
50. The Applicant, its environmental consultant and the DMR are fully aware of this prohibition, yet the Applicant applied for a mining right in the Moutonshoek Protected Environment and the DMR apparently accepted such application without following due process.
51. The Objectors acknowledge that there might be an exemption where mining activities will be allowed in a protected environment which may happen if both the Minister for Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources give their consent to such mining activities. Obtaining these ministers’ consent would presuppose an application by the Applicant for such consent. A properly motivated application why the ministers should exercise their discretion in favour of the Applicant. The Objectors could find no trace of any application of this nature. On the contrary, it may be possible that the Applicant relies upon the Minister for Mineral Resources to address this issue. Nevertheless, whatever course of action is followed, any such decision would have an impact on certain interested parties, and, for that matter, the Minister would be compelled to follow the processes and procedures that are prescribed in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.
52. On 14 January 2019, the DMR was requested in writing to indicate whether any such permission to mine in the protected environment was granted. To date a response from the DMR is still absent.
30
LAND USE OF AFFECTED AREAS
53. The Affected Properties are located within the jurisdictional area of Bergrivier Municipality and are currently zoned as Agriculture Zone 1 in terms of the Bergrivier Municipality: Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2016. The current zoning of the subject farms does not allow for mining or prospecting and therefore a land use planning application must be submitted to Bergrivier Municipality, 2018. In terms of Section 86(1)(b) of the By-Law it is an offence to utilize land in a manner other than prescribed by a zoning scheme without the approval of the Municipality.”
54. In terms of the Integrated Zoning Scheme the objectives of Agricultural Zone 1 is to promote and protect agriculture on farms as an important economic, environmental and cultural resource. Limited provision is made for non- agricultural uses to provide rural communities in more remote areas with the opportunity to increase the economic potential of their properties, provided these uses do not present a significant negative impact on the primary agricultural resource. Agriculture means the cultivation of land for raising crops and other plants, including plantations, the keeping and breeding of animals, birds or bees, stud farming, game farming, intensive horticulture; intensive animal farming; a riding school or natural veld, and it does not include any mining activity.
55. The only zoning that allows for mining activities is Industrial Zone IV where mining is a primary land use.
56. It therefore follows that the Applicant, and it is submitted, will have to apply to the Bergrivier Municipality for the rezoning of the relevant portions of the Affected Properties from agricultural to industrial zoning in order to conduct mining activities.
57. In terms of Section 15(2) of the Municipal Planning By-law only the owner of the land or his or her agent may apply to the Municipality for the rezoning of land. It is recorded that Moutonshoek Investments (Pty) Ltd, the registered owner of 31
Portion 1 of Farm 297, shall not apply for neither shall it give consent to anybody that a rezoning application be submitted. The Applicant’s attempt to conduct mining activities on portion 1 of Farm 297 will not be entertained, even in the unlikely event that the DMR approves its application for a mining right.
58. In this regard the Applicant is referred to the comments made by the District Manager: LandCare West Coast of the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Mr Jan Smit. The District Manager strongly objects against the application for the mining right under discussion for the following reasons: • The mining activities shall leave an inheritance that will remain for far longer than its working lifespan, causing a massive environmental problem similar to what is already been experienced in other areas in the world. • Never being able to fully compensate negative impacts of the proposed mine to the state, the environment and land users. • Prevent the continuation of farming on High and Unique Agricultural Land. • Impact negatively on the right to farm the subject properties and surrounding farms. • Permanently pollute the natural agricultural resources with minerals that have high levels of toxicity and are classified as emerging contaminants. • Expose minerals to air and water that will begin to produce acid, which will leach into run-off water to be dispersed into ground and surface water. • Result in acid mine drainage occurring in the remaining mine pit after mining and rehabilitation. • Permanently negatively affect water flow in the Krom Antonies River due to dewatering of the mining area. • Negatively impact yields on boreholes and wells of surrounding groundwater users and may lead to some drying up due to the mine. • Negatively impact on groundwater dependent wetland systems. • Produce toxic dust that will impact on the production and market value of fruit and table grapes. 32
• Impact negatively on future agricultural activities and the continuation of current agricultural activities. • Impact negatively on proposed new agricultural developments. • Contaminate the agricultural and environmental resources of the catchment. • Negatively affect the current agricultural production of the entire Moutonshoek Valley and other farms in the Verlorenvlei catchment area. • Negatively affect the legally executed water use rights of surrounding farmers. • Negatively affect Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment • Negatively affect the sustainable management of the Verlorenriver and its Estuary. • Negatively affect the farming community, land users and workers. • Will have a permanent negative impact on the current number of agricultural jobs as well as the long term number of agricultural jobs. • Nullify the project investments made in this catchment by the office of the District Manager and other government entities.
It is the obligation of the Applicant to convince the decision-making authorities that its proposed mining activities would not result in the above.
59. The Applicant concedes that it would also need to obtain the permission of the Head of the Department of Environmental Affairs under the provisions of Section 53 of the Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act No. 3 of 2014). In terms of this section no person may without an approval develop land that will have a substantial effect on agriculture, due to the nature or scale of the proposed land use. The Applicant is reminded of the fact that the Department who must consider the Applicant’s application in terms of this section, will be the very same Department that declared the Moutonshoek Protected Area.
60. Both the Applicant and the DMR should be painfully aware of the fact that despite the Applicant being granted a prospecting right in 2011 to prospect for certain minerals, it was never able to exercise its rights under that prospecting right. Due to land use considerations as explained above, the Applicant was not 33
able to obtain any consent to prospect on land zoned for agricultural use. It was refused by the Bergrivier Municipality because the prospecting activities would have a negative impact upon the natural environment and the alleged benefit of the prospecting activities did not outweigh those that would be lost as a result of the prospecting activities.
61. The Applicant now applied for a much more invasive mining right. It is the Objectors’ contention that even if the DMR could find justification to grant a mining right (which, in the opinion of the Objectors, based on merits, should not be the case), the end result would probably be exactly the same. The Applicant would not be able to obtain approval to rezone the affected properties from agriculture to industrial zone to render its envisaged mining activities an allowed land use.
MINERALS ON THE PROPERTY
62. At the crux of every mining right application, including that of the Applicant, is the availability and extent of the mineral resource that is to be extracted.
63. The Objectors could find no evidence submitted by the Applicant pertaining to, amongst others:- • the locality of the mineral deposit relative to the mining area, • the information required in terms of Regulation 8 in cases where the application was preceded by a prospecting right, • existing exploration results and supporting geological reports, • a description of the geological structure of the mineral deposit; • the size of the deposit, • the depth of the mineral deposit below surface; • details of proven and probable reserves, • estimated grades of the deposit.
64. Furthermore, no evidence was submitted regarding:- • The specific mining techniques to be used; 34
• The position of access roads, shafts or declines, workshops, offices and stores, pumping facilities, primary development or pit design, processing plant locality, overburden and residue deposition sites, topsoil storage sites, stockpiles, waste dumps, and any other basic mine design features; • A description of any specific engineering constraints that may be anticipated in accessing and extracting the mineral resource, such as groundwater management, flooding, surface protection, fly rock risks, seismicity, or any other identified constraints; and • Information as to whether the mining operation or part thereof is to be contracted out
65. The above is material and substantive information that must be considered by the Objectors in order to submit meaningful and informed comments. It may also be necessary for the Objectors to obtain the opinions of its own expert specialists/consultants.
66. In the both the BID (page 6) and the DSR (pages 16, 31, 40) it is recorded by the Applicant that: “The Applicant currently holds a prospecting right (WC 30/5/1/1/2/10197 PR) over the proposed mining right application area for tungsten (W) ore, molybdenum (Mo) ore, rare earths, copper ore, zinc ore, gold ore and silver ore. Owing to the outcome of the prospecting operation, the applicant wishes to apply for a mining right for the winning of tungsten and molybdenum”.
67. These recordals are, to say the least, confusing for the following reasons:-
67.1. The Applicant was granted a prospecting right on 1 July 2011 under reference WC30/5/1/1/2/434PR.
67.2. This prospecting right expired on 30 June 2014.
67.3. The Applicant no alleges that it is the holder of prospecting right WC30/5/1/1/2/10197PR over the application area. This reference number 35
differs from the 2011 granted prospecting right. The Applicant gave no explanation in this regard.
67.4. It is accepted that the Applicant could have applied for the renewal of the prospecting right 434PR in terms of Section 18 of the Act after meeting the requirement of that section, particularly a detailed report reflecting the prospecting results under the right to be renewed. The Applicant could not comply with this requirement since it was prevented from exercising its rights as explained.
67.5. If the right was indeed renewed the Objectors find it strange that a new reference number would be allocated. The existing right would have simply been endorsed with the renewal under the same reference number.
67.6. According to Section 18(4) of the Act it was only possible to renew the prospecting right once for a period of three years. It then follows that the right in any case should have lapsed on 30 June 2017.
67.7. It is improbable that a new prospecting right under reference 10197PR would have been granted without complying with the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, specifically Section 16(4) that requires submission of environmental reports and a public participation process after due notification.
67.8. Notwithstanding the fact that 434PR could have been renewed or a new prospecting right 10197PR inexplicably been granted, the Applicant could not have conducted any prospecting activities without first obtaining the required land use approval.
67.9. In the absence of any documentary proof to the contrary the Objectors question the Applicant’s recordal that it is the holder of a valid prospecting right.
36
67.10. The Applicant’s further statement that it applies for a mining right “owing to the outcome of the prospecting operation” is also questioned. Physical prospecting on the land constituting the mining right application area was not possible due to land use restrictions and as far as the Objectors are aware of, did not occur.
67.11. It is recorded that the Centre for Environmental Rights on 29 September 2015 submitted a request under the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information, 2000 (Act 2 of 2000), under reference CER-2015- DMR-0009 (WESSA). SAHA (South African History Archive) in its Freedom of Information Programme recorded the summary of this matter (http://foip.saha.org.za/request_tracker/entry/cer-2015-dmr-0009) and it is quoted as follows:-
Record summary 16-11-2015 (Christine Reddell): Received letter - letter simply indicated that no rights had been issued in that area, and that an application for tungsten was pending - "Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd (10197 PR) on the rem extent portion 6 and portions 1; 13 of the farm Namaquasfontein 76, portion 1 of the farm 297".
I responded by writing to Mervin Petro (listed contact person for enquiries) - I explained that we were under the impression that a prospecting right had been granted and that a renewal application had been submitted - that is why we asked for a copy of both the prospecting right and the renewal application. The response received did not adequately deal with our PAIA request.
20-11-2015 (CR): Very unhelpful response from Mervin - "I believe we have responded to your request adequately according to my knowledge and our records. I am unable to respond to what newspaper articles alleged. For any further deliberations please contact our Mineral Laws Section (Mr Mwelase X1055)." 37
Tried Mr Mwelase many times, finally got hold of him on 1-12-2015 - He said that he didn’t know the facts (this was the first time he was hearing about it), but that I must understand that his office needs to protect itself. They will provide access to information when a court orders them to but can’t just release information just because someone sitting at head office says so. The person sitting at head office doesn’t know what the information looks like and the risks involved in releasing. He said – we can’t give out copies of prospecting works programmes, or financial ability, but we can sometimes give out technical information. He said that organisations like ours should give reasons why we want the information – even though the form doesn’t provide a space to do so. He said – the best place to get this information is the company itself, not through government. He said – you shouldn’t put government at risk like this. He was very firm and rude and completely horrible to deal with – he cut me off all the time. I was firm too, and it was clear by the end of the conversation that we were both really frustrated with each other. He said he would follow up with Mervin (which I doubt he will do). I asked if I could send him our request form and the decision letter from national – and he just said – “I’ll get it from Mervin”.
67.12. On 21 December 2018, Greenmined was requested to make available documentation reflecting and confirming the “outcome of the prospecting operation”. Greenmined responded on 8 January 2019 as follows “The prospecting operation referred to in the BID included geological re- logging of the available historic diamond drill core, resampling of a select number of these holes and a short-lived diamond drilling programme on the Remainder of Portion 6 (portion of portion 2) Namaquasfontein Farm No 76. Your request for “documentation reflecting and confirming the outcome of the prospecting operation” has been forwarded to the applicant and we will respond accordingly upon receipt of the relevant documentation”. In this regard the following:-
38
(i) It is recorded that, and not surprisingly, no documentation regarding the alleged prospecting has been forthcoming from the Applicant; and
(ii) Gleaning from the response of Greenmined it is clear that the prospecting activities were those identified under 434PR before it was aborted by the Applicant. No reference is made to any activities under the alleged 10197PR.
67.13. Based on the above, the Objectors take issue with statements made by the Applicant that it conducted prospecting activities and that, in the process, it obtained information that justified the Application. It is accordingly necessary that this aspect receives further scrutiny by all the relevant authorities that will be engaged in the consideration of the Application and associated authorities.
68. The Objectors, in the absence of any substantive supporting evidence in this regard by the Applicant, are not aware of any authority since 1908 that would sign of a finding that would conclude that anything else than a very low possibility of extracting an economically viable mineral deposit would be applicable to the application area.
69. The Applicant’s very own consultant, SRK Consulting, in April 2013 submitted a report “Technical review of the Riviera Tungsten Deposit, Western Cape Province, South Africa”. The request was for SRK to compile and sign off on a technical review of their Riviera Tungsten Project. The report was compiled by Prof A Rozendaal and Dr H Theart. Incidentally, this report was compiled at the instructions of the Applicant after 434PR was granted. Its objective was to provide the Applicant with technical advice and strategic advice and to prepare an Independent Technical Assessment of the projects.
70. It is clear that the technical review did not provide a SAMREC (South African Mineral Resource Committee) or JORC (Code prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian 39
Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia) compliant classified mineral resource and suggested an indicated-classified resource might be attainable if further exploration is completed. Such further exploration would include substantial further drilling and would necessarily also include bulk sampling. There is no evidence that this was done by the Applicant.
71. The Objectors were informed by its consultants that during 2008 the Applicant requested Venmyn Rand to conduct an independent preliminary scoping study. Venmyn concluded that the Mineral Resource statement is not SAMREC or JORC Code compliant and as a result, it had the status of a conceptual study.
72. Both Venmyn 2008 and SRK 2013 make it clear that a new pre-feasibility level study must be completed after results for the recommended exploration are integrated. The economic extraction potential of Riviera would be a primary outcome of such work.
73. It is the Objectors’ contention that no right to mine can be approved for a deposit without a SAMREC or JORC declared classified resource and with not- established (or unknown) prospects of economic extraction.
74. The Applicant is challenged to provide documentary proof that the tungsten and molybdenum deposits allegedly to be found on the application area is a SAMREC or JORC classified mineral resource.
75. Furthermore, the Applicant is obliged to provide substantive information that it has concluded a pre-feasibility and feasibility assessment with regard to the mining operations. It has to provide a concept techno-economical assessment report reflecting not only a closure plan, but more importantly an opening and operational plan for the envisaged mine.
76. The Applicant is also requested to provide evidence confirming the economic viability of the mining operations, especially in light of the fact that the tungsten price (US dollars per mtu WO3) since 2012 has dropped by 67% (https://www.metalary.com/tungsten-price/ ) 40
77. It is clear from the DSR that it is the Applicant’s sole intention to export the mineral product. None is earmarked for the local market. In light of the fact that China and Russia account for 90% of the world supply, the Applicant must give an indication of who its market would be and how it would compete with the major role-players in the tungsten industry. In the final analysis, any of these potential benefits must be weighed against the detrimental effects of the intended mining operation having regard to the interests, not only of those farmers conducting agricultural activities but also the broader community and the environment.
78. The Objectors wish to draw the attention to what would appear to be an inconsistency on pages 95, 96 and 97 of the DSR. The Applicant made certain comments on specific topics and refers to Information extracted from the Technical Review of the Riviera Tungsten Deposit, Western Cape Province, South Africa, SRK Consulting, 2018. Gleaning from the information provided it is clear that the reference should have been to the 2013 SRK report.
HYDROLOGICAL IMPACTS
79. Ample evidence exist that the Krom Antonies River Valley and the regions downstream from the intended mining area are highly sensitive areas where the regular supply of good quality river and groundwater are essential for their existence, and the livelihood of all that reside and make a living there. Further downstream, the RAMSAR site of Verlorenvlei is also dependent on the water from the Krom Antonies River to keep the salinity regulated
80. The onus is on the Applicant to produce substantive evidence that the mine will not have a negative effect on the quality of the ground and river water flowing from the valley and also will not significantly reduce the volume of groundwater in the region and water in the Krom Antonies River. In particular the following negative impacts must be considered :- • mining operations would draw an amount of water that would make farming in the area unsustainable. 41
• Water quality of the aquifers and water in the Krom Antonies river would be negatively affected due to runoff through the mine and mine dump. • Acid mine drainage (AMD) will occur through the lifetime of the mine from water seeping into the pit. • A large tailings dam shall pose a risk of spills causing massive contamination to the surrounding area. • Water filling up the mine pit will become acidic from AMD and eventually decant and contaminate the surrounding groundwater.
DRAFT SCOPING REPORT
81. The Objectors now hereunder deal with the DSR submitted by the Applicant.
82. After perusing the contents of the DSR it is submitted by the Objectors that it is difficult to comment on the document because the information provided to explain the project was mostly general, and not specific to make constructive and specific comment possible.
83. The aforesaid was also the conclusion by the DMR when a similar application was considered under 328MR and consequently refused the mining right application on 24 June 2009. It is trusted that the DMR would be consistent in its consideration of the subject DSR.
84. The DSR is part of the application for environmental authorisation and does not deal with the mining right application. Reference was already made to the fact that the Applicant and/or its consultant has arbitrarily classified the mining right application as confidential and the Objectors are prevented from commenting on it.
85. The DSR comprise 348 pages. The Applicant devotes no less than 73% of the DSR to lists of stakeholders and identified I&AP’s, proof of emails, posting of documents, comments by I&AP’s, responses by Greenmined and then repeating this information. The rest of the submission comprise of a generic completion of a scoping report pro forma required by the DMR. References are made to 42
extraction of dated reports that formed part of previous prospecting and mining right applications by the Applicant and in most cases the Applicant and/or its consultant addresses an issue simply by stating that it will be dealt with in the environmental authorisation report. No specialist reports were provided. As a result, it remains extremely difficult and almost impossible for the Objectors to process the information and provide meaningful comments.
86. The scoping report contemplated in Regulation 49 is founded on the principle of consultation with interested and affected parties, which consultation process and its results are an integral part of the fairness process. If the consultation process was not sufficient then the decision-maker cannot grant any application.
87. The DMR has published guidelines for the compilation of a scoping report. Any applicant, including the Applicant, is obliged to comply with these guidelines. Measured against these guidelines it is clear that the Applicant has failed materially in its obligations in this regard. The Objectors fail to see how the Applicant will be able to attend to the following before it has to submit its final scoping report to the DMR on 18 February 2018, at the latest. The Applicant and/or its environmental consultant did not–
• had any meeting with the community, landowners and interested and affected parties;
• inform the community, landowners, and interested and affected parties in sufficient detail of what the mining operation will entail on the land, in order for them to assess what impact the mining will have on them or on the use of their land. In fact, the mining right application was intentionally withheld;
• consult with the community, landowners, and interested and affected parties with a view to reaching agreement to the satisfaction of both parties in regard to the existing cultural, socio-economic or biophysical environment, as the case may be, and how potentially that will be impacted on by the proposed mining operation; 43
• deal with the socio-economic environment that may be directly affected by a change in land use;
• provide a complete description of the existing status of the biophysical environment that will be affected, including the main aspects such as water resources, flora, fauna, air, soil, topography etc., supported by specialist reports;
• confirm that the community and identified interested and affected parties have been consulted and that they agree that the potential impacts identified include those identified by them;
• provide a list of potential impacts on the socio- economic conditions of any person on any adjacent or non-adjacent property who may be affected by the proposed mining operation.
• provide any description of potential cumulative impacts that the proposed mining operation may contribute to considering other identified land uses which may have potential environmental linkages to the land concerned, for instance the existing farming activities, investments made and future expansion investments
• provide a list of any land developments identified by the community or interested and affected parties that are in progress and which may be affected by the proposed mining operation.
• provide a list of any proposals made in the consultation process to adjust the operational plans of the mine to accommodate the needs of the community, landowners and interested and affected parties.
• describe the most appropriate procedure to plan and develop the proposed mining operation with due consideration of the issues raised in the consultation process.
44
88. The Objectors have also been informed that up to the date of the filing of this objection, the Applicant failed to identify and consult with representatives of the !Aman // Aes Traditional authority ( Previously known as Amaquas of the West Coast). According to this traditional authority the mine application area is part of its ancestral lands and are therefore of huge significance to them and needs to be protected.
Dealing with specific matters contained in the DSR
89. Reference was already made to the questionable statements by the Applicant that it is the holder of a valid prospecting right and that the outcome of the prospecting justified the mining right application.
90. The Applicant refers to a number of reports, but none has been made available for scrutiny. It is assumed that they should be made available during the environmental assessment phase leaving Objectors with only 30 days to study and comment on at least 11 identified specialist reports.
91. On page 21 of the DSR it is stated as a fact that mining operations will be run on a 24-hour 7 days of the week basis. This is in total disregard of the right of the Objectors and its constituents to enjoy a disruptive environment with peace and quiet, especially during night hours.
92. The Applicant on page 21 states that no less than 350 Ha of the 531 Ha mining right area will be altered/transformed by its proposed mining operations. The total life of the mine is expected to be 21 years and the mining right will be valid for 30 years. It is evident that a high fertile potential and unique agricultural land will be transformed into a mine and in the process also alter the provision of water that will irreversibly impact upon groundwater resources.
93. On page 26 it is indicated that the Applicant will provide employment to 211 employees, including management. Altogether the Objectors provide work to approximately 700 employees. It is clear that the Applicant regards the rights and expectations of other employees to be subservient to its objectives and, in the 45
process disregards the devastating consequences the Objectors' and other landowners’ employees will have to face if farming operations are to shut down or be limited because of the mining activities.
94. From the comments received by the Applicant at the date of the submission of the DSR it is clear that only Eskom supports the application. Eskom as an I&AP cannot even be remotely compared with the Objectors and others in terms of interests at stake and the way in which they shall be affected.
95. In support of information regarding the environmental attributes associated with the mining area, the Applicant relies upon information contained in specialist reports compiled in 2009 as part of its prospecting right application. It is the Objectors’ contention that Applicant has failed to provide any justification that these 10-year old reports are still relevant and authoritative.
96. On page 40 the Applicant attempts to justify the need and desirability of the mining activity. This discussion is totally inadequate since it only refers to – • tungsten being considered a strategic material by China and the European Union and then a description of the importance of the metal; • the questionable prospecting activities by the Applicant justifying the need for a mining right application; • the probable employment opportunities and a general comment regarding contributions to the local economy.
97. At the most the Applicant is referred to the NEMA: Guideline on Need and Desirability (Guideline 9) – GenN 891 in GG 38108 of 20 October 2014. The Applicant would find this extremely helpful in respect of conducting a proper assessment of the need and desirability of its intended mining operations.
98. The Applicant confirms that a social and labour plan was submitted as part of the mining right application. No details are provided in respect of this plan other than stating that it would be dealt with in detail in the draft environmental impact assessment report. This despite the fact that the Applicant was obliged to address the socio-economic environment that may be directly affected by a 46
change in land use in the scoping report. As a result, the Objectors have no information in this regard neither can it provide any comments.
99. On page 119 of the DSR the Applicant lists no less than 29 negative impacts on the receiving environment as a result of the mining operations. These include, mining in the Moutonshoek environment; potential relocation of farm owners/residents; visual intrusion; impact on groundwater resources; etc. It then proceeds and identify 8 potential positive impacts, namely – • increased work opportunities to local residents – the Applicant however fails to make any reference to how many employees may lose their employment on the farms, both directly and adjacent to the mining site. The Applicant is obliged to consider and discuss the potential work losses that face current employees;
• potential decrease in water demand from local resources as result of an offsite reverse osmosis plant – the Applicant who loses sight of the fact that its mining operations will negatively impact upon all water resources, not only in the mining area, but also on farms, such as that of the Objectors, who rely on borehole water. Also, the properties downstream of the Krom Antonies River and the Verlorenvlei.
• increased income generated within the Moutonshoek Valley – the Applicant failed to consider the loss of income to be sustained when 3 working farms will be forced to shut down and also the negative impacts of the presence of the open cast pit mine and mining operations on the Objectors’ agricultural activities.
• Contribution of Riviera Tungsten to South African export – the Applicant, apart from making a general statement, did not provide any financial figures to substantiate this “positive” impact. Absent also is a study where the current contribution to South African export by the Objectors and other farming operations is compared with the potential contribution by the Applicant’s mine.
47
• Potential use of the rehabilitated opencast pit for water storage – the Applicant gave no indication of the volume of water that would be stored, where would the water come from and if the water stored would be fit for human, animal or irrigation purposes. Potential Acid mine drainage (AMD) would render any water stored in the pit to be unfit for whatever purpose. The Objectors could find no specialist report addressing this issue.
• Potential use of the slimes dam for water storage or aquaculture purposes- in the absence of any studies to the contrary it is the Objectors’ submission that water stored in the slimes dam in all probability would be totally unfit for agricultural use. (It is recorded that the Applicant did not provide any information on the volumes of how much slimes/tailings would be stored in the slimes/tailings dam). On the contrary it is contended that any large tailings dam shall pose a risk of spills causing massive contamination to the surrounding area.
• Return of the rehabilitated area to agricultural land use – there is no evidence that this would be achievable. In fact, evidence worldwide exists that the degradation of the receiving environment, especially agricultural land is irreversible and permanent.
100. Proper consideration of the Applicant’s “positive” impacts would reveal that they all in fact point to the contrary. As a result, the envisaged mine would have only negative impacts.
101. The Applicant then proceeds and deal with possible mitigation measures to address the potential negative impacts, pages 120 to 127. In general, it is the Objectors’ submission that the measures proposed will not be effective as suggested by the Applicant, in fact there is no evidence that it would have the desired results. Measures include:-
• Potential relocation of affected farm owners/residents –The Applicant gives no indication of where the land owner, his family and employees 48
will be relocated to, nor does it give any idea of the costs involved. Will the Applicant return to the land all those that have been relocated once the mining has stopped? Would the Applicant also remunerate the farm owner for loss of income and also compensate the farm employees or source alternative employment.
• According to the Applicant dust emissions, amongst others, would be mitigated by water spraying. Water is a scarce and precious commodity in the area and should exclusively be utilised for farming activities. This resource will be depleted by spraying it 24/7 for 365 days a year as indicated by the Applicant. This measure also is not feasible.
• The Objectors could find no reference to a visual impact assessment with recommendations on how to mitigate visual impacts. According to the Applicant this could be achieved by keeping the mining site neat and in a good condition. The Applicant however gave no indication of how it would mitigate the visual impact of a huge opencast pit in the pristine Moutonshoek valley.
• The Applicant states that noise generated by the 24/7 mining activities shall comply with Noise Control Regulations. The Applicant however failed to indicate what measures will be taken to ensure compliance. Drilling and blasting on weekdays between 8:00 and 17:00 surely would cause a disturbing noise to humans and animals alike, yet no mitigation measures in this regard are described.
• Storm water and potential sedimentation of the Krom Antonies River would be mitigated through a storm water management plan. No such plan was presented to peruse and comment on.
• Potential impact on groundwater sources and seepage from the slimes dam. No feasible mitigation measures are proposed, and everything is left to be dealt with as part of the EIA process.
49
• Rehabilitation of excavated area:- the Objectors submit that the excavated area will remain as a scar on the environment. The degradation of the environment and agricultural land shall be irreversible and their simply will be no way in which the land will be rehabilitated to its primary use.
102. The description of the proposed activities in the DSR is totally inadequate for interested parties to be able to provide informed comments.
• The DSR does not even provide the surface extent of the proposed open pit. In Table 1 on page 16 of the DSR it is stated that the extent of “Opencast mining” is ± 400m (opencast pit). This is a measurement of length and not area. Presumably it was meant that the diameter of the proposed open pit is 400m.
• The extent of the open pit is not provided in Appendix 4 (the Site Layout Plan). The Site Layout Plan does not even have a scale bar nor was it compiled by an engineer. The final depth of the open pit is not provided.
• The extent of the proposed open pit as measured on Google Earth is somewhere between 16 and 20 hectares, but this is not made clear anywhere in the DSR.
103. The description of the operational phase (pages 20 and 21) is inadequate.
• The DSR states: “The first phase will focus on pre-stripping the top layer material, of which the topsoil will be stored separately for rehabilitation, then overburden stripping to access the ore body, and then 20 m of opencast mining”.
• The 20m probably refers to overburden removal and not opencast mining. This means that the DSR does not provide the proposed final depth of open cast mining. The DSR does not provide any information about the proposed decline shafts and the proposed dimensions of the underground workings. 50
• The overburden is 5m to 20m thick according to the original description of the deposit by Walker PWA (1994). The sub-outcropping rock below that is deeply weathered and 1 to 10m of clay is commonly found below the alluvium.
• On page 21 of the DSR it is stated: “Currently it is proposed that ±350 ha of the 531.44 ha mining right area will be altered by the proposed mining activity”. This does not balance with the information provided in the Site Layout Plan (Appendix 4):
Item Activity Extent (hectares) 1. Slimes Dam 10.63 2 Plant Area / Offices/ Operations 3.00 3. Open Pit (area not provided in DSR) 20.00 4. Overburden storage area 47.83 Total 81.46
• The potential impact of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) has not been identified as a potential impact that may have a negative impact on the receiving environment (see list of potential impacts on page 118). The ore body and the associated alteration in the wall rocks contain sulphide
minerals including molybdenite (MoS2), pyrite (FeS2), pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS)
and chalcopyrite (CuFeS2).
• The term Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) refers to a low pH, high heavy metal effluent typical from water passing through sulphide mineral contained in mines, waste dumps or tailings dumps and is most commonly associated with the production of ferrous iron and sulphuric acid through the oxidation of iron pyrite. If operations at Riviera Tungsten result in AMD it could have a significant negative impact on any natural water that is affected (e.g. ground water, rivers or wetlands).
51
• In order to access the ore in the open pit or in the proposed underground pit it will be necessary to dewater the mining areas. This will require groundwater and rainwater to be pumped out of the mine. The impact of mine dewatering is an activity that has not been identified as a potential impact that may have a negative impact on the receiving environment (see list of potential impacts on page 118).
104. On page 124 of the DSR it is stated that –
• Mining must be conducted only in accordance with the Best Practice Guideline for small scale mining that relates to storm water management, erosion and sediment control and waste management, developed by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), and any other conditions which that Department may impose.
• The proposed mine is not a small scale mine. It is a large-scale drill and blast operation with a processing plant, slimes dam and overburden and waste rock dumps. The stormwater management plan and associated infrastructure (cut off drains, silt retention ponds etc.) should be prepared and signed off by a qualified civil or mining engineer.
105. Page 126 of the DSR deals with the rehabilitation of the excavated area. It is stated that: • “Incline shafts must be sealed; • Rocks and coarse material removed during the operational phase must be dumped into the excavation; • No waste may be permitted to be deposited into the excavations; • Once overburden, rocks and coarse natural materials has been added to the excavation and it was profiled with acceptable contours and erosion control measures, the topsoil previously stored must be returned to its original depth over the area.”
52
106. Until the correct depth of the open cast mine is provided it is not possible to properly comment on the above statement. It is highly unlikely that a large open cast mine will be filled with rocks and overburden.
107. This also contradicts with a statement on page 146 of the DSR that considers the potential use of decommissioned mine areas for alternative purposes such as water storage. It is stated that the likelihood and significance that decommissioned infrastructure can be implemented for future use by landowners must be assessed during the EIA process. These possibilities must form part of the closure plan to be approved for the mining area, and must include options such as, but not limited to, the possible use of the slimes dam for aquaculture purposes, use of the opencast pit for water storage.
108. The presence of pyrite in the slimes dam and in the wall rocks of the open pit may mean that these areas are not suitable for aquaculture or even for storing water.
OUTSTANDING INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT
109. The Objectors submit that the following additional specialist reports and assessments are also required to provide interested and affected parties and authorities with sufficient information so that informed comments can be provided:
109.1. A full and correct technical description of the mining methods (open cast and underground) including detailed layout plans as well as a description of the processing method, the processing plant, storage of tailings, storage of overburden and storage of waste rock.
109.2. A specialist visual impact assessment based on the actual project specifications and from affected peoples residence .
109.3. A geotechnical study to determine the slope stability of the pit in the overburden, weathered rock and hard rock as well as a description of 53
bench heights, bench slopes and the estimated volume of overburden and waste rock that will be removed and stockpiled.
109.4. A geochemical study by an environmental geochemist to characterise the AMD potential of the ore, wall rocks and tailings and an assessment of the significance of the impact of AMD on the receiving environment.
109.5. A stormwater management plan and associated infrastructure (cut off drains, silt retention ponds etc.) to be prepared by a qualified engineer.
109.6. An assessment of the impact of the dewatering of the mine must be included in the terms of reference for the proposed Hydrogeological Assessment and Freshwater Ecological Assessment.
109.7. A detailed plan of the envisaged tailings/slimes dam that has been designed and signed off by a professional engineer, with specifications designed and built to meet or exceed the highest international safety standards.
109.8. To assist I&AP’s to comment and assess the project, the following information is also required:
• the size, shape and location of the excavation based on prospecting information and mining methods to be used;
• the size, location, slope and height of the slimes dam and overburden dump;
• the predicted volume of the slimes that will be produced based on the prospecting information;
• the chemistry of the ore and resultant tailings based on the prospecting information; • the predicted structure of the slimes;
54
• the chemistry and structure of overburden;
• the volume of water to be used by the plant, people and dust suppression and the proposed source thereof;
• the volume and quality of water that will be released into the environment;
• details regarding the volume and type and concentration of each chemical used and released by all the different processes in the plant;
• the electricity demand of the total project;
• the depth, volume of overburden based upon the prospecting information;
• the volume of all other wastes that may be produced;
• volume and method of fuel storage;
• details regarding the predicted noise and dust emissions from the crushing plant and mining;
• the location and size of housing and offices of all the employees;
• the design of a sewage plant with a capacity for all staff members;
• all internal roads, conveyers or pipelines routes;
• the predicted volume and weight of traffic out of and onto the valley;
• maps drawn up by a surveyor and with a scale suitable to define impacts, must indicate the size and location and slopes of the excavation, dumps and infrastructure and be used to describe the mining phases, explain proposed mitigation measures and allow the monitoring of compliance; 55
• specific “prospecting information” that indicates the depth and properties of the soil, overburden and ore layers. The grades of the products and chemistry of the ore as well as clarity on the volumes and composition of the tailings;
• A Socio-Economic Impact assessment (in addition to a social and labour plan) to determine and compare the feasibility of the proposed mine with that of the existing land use. infrastructure must be explained; and
• All risks, impacts and costs on current land-use namely agriculture and others, schools, crèches, training, housing, land values, jobs, lifestyle, quality of life, soils, projects, road infrastructure, current water users and electricity supply, and other industries such as agriculture and tourism.
109.9. The hydrological study must be conducted over at least a dry and this current wet cycle. The hydrological study must investigate the effect of dewatering and mining activity at this particular site and water uses and to water users lower down the catchment, especially during the predicted future dry seasons.
109.10. The slimes dam may add a significant risk of siltation of the river and estuary and a report must address the risk of siltation of the Krom Antonies River by the mining and dumps and mitigation and monitoring measures, comprehensively.
109.11. Baseline noise and dust measurements and predicted noise and dust emissions from the plant, mill and other mining activities. As well as an assessment of how the current land use in the valley may be affected.
56
109.12. An assessment of the impact on soils and land capability and also assess the impact of dust, water loss and water quality as well as on the soils on agriculture production.
109.13. A mine plan drawn up by a qualified surveyor, based on the prospecting information and with a scale suitable to define impacts, , describing the mining phases in more detail, propose mitigation measures and monitor compliance. The maps and information provided in the report must be of a suitable scale to make assessment of the impacts impossible. Include a mine and rehabilitation plan that indicates the different phases of mining activities based on the actual figures.
110. The Applicant acknowledged that the information provided in the DSR is totally insufficient by stating on page 129 that:-
• Various alternatives (project, technology, design etc.) will be considered during the EIA process;
• The need and desirability of the proposed activity will be discussed in detail and weighed against the no-go option of upholding the status quo at the study area.
• The findings, recommendations and management measure proposed in the specialist reports will be assessed during the EIA process and incorporated into the DEIAR;
• The impact of the proposed project on the physical-, biological-, and human environments will be assessed.
• Mitigation measures will be proposed to control, modify, remedy or stop the impacts associated with the proposed activity on the surrounding environment.
57
The only reasonable deduction that can be made from the aforementioned is that the Applicant has a concept of what it wishes to achieve. It still has to commence with the pre-feasibility, feasibility and operational phases. It hopes to achieve this during the EIA phase. As a result, the DSR is flawed in that it does not provide the Objectors with even the basic information to consider.
PUBLIC RESPONSE
111. The Objectors unequivocally state that this application has received no positive response from the public.
112. Apart from Eskom, it is extremely unlikely that any other government department would even consider conditionally supporting the application.
113. It is submitted that the DMR will have no other option but to take note of the vehement and vigorous public and departmental opposition when considering the application.
CONCLUSION
114. In light of what has been stated above, the Objectors are of the opinion that the mining right application submitted by Bongani Minerals (Pty) Ltd should be rejected by the Department of Minerals Resources.
Signed on behalf of the Objectors at Cape Town on this 12th day of February 2019.
ADV MARTIN COETZEE Tel: 021-801 1396 23 Kwarts Street Fax: 086 672 9271 Welgelegen Cell: 082 940 6427 7500 Email: [email protected]
58
ANNEXURE A
PARAGRAPH 1 : LIST OF OBJECTORS
NAME SURNAME FROM 1 Clive Adams Eendekuil 2 David Berel Alexander Verlorenvlei 3 Justin Amos Sebulon Farm V/V 4 Michael Anderson Paters Haven 5 Kobus Baanzaaies Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 6 Case Bakker Cape Town 7 Ntombizodwa Bango Elandsbaai 8 Sandra Barbosa Vereeniging 9 Gert Basson Wilgerbosdrift 10 Geuswin Basson Wilgerbosdrift 11 Gregory S Basson Redelinghuys 12 Simon Baty Redelinghuys 13 Robert Ernst Beckman Disa Lodge 14 Sindiswa Bengo Elandsbaai 15 Angelo Beukes Riviera 16 John Bezuidenhout Namaquasfontein 17 Nonkwuleko Bhushula Nuwerus Farm V/V 18 Karen Bleeker Velddrif 19 Mqoiyswa Bonisi Elandsbaai 20 Luzaan Boogonaarier Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 21 Elizabeth Boois Redelinghuys 22 Jydian L Boois Redelinghuys 23 Manuel Boois Redelinghuys 24 Nolin Boois Sebulon Farm V/V 25 Anita Booysen Riviera 26 Diana Booysen Elandsbaai 27 Diana Booysen Redelinghuys 28 Gerrit Booysen Riviera 29 Maria Booysen Redelinghuys 30 Jan Botes Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 31 J P Botha Erasmuskloof 32 Johann Botha Dwarskersbos 33 Nicola Botha Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 34 S Botha Elandsbaai 35 Dillen Bothma Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 36 Marelize Bothma Vereeniging 37 Pieter Bothma Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 59
38 Pihndile Boyana Namaquasfontein 39 Henk Brand Karookop Primary School 40 Ngxola Bredina Elandsbaai 41 Anna E Brink Piketberg 42 Pierre J Brink Piketberg 43 Quinton Bullard Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 44 Gail Bullpit Wilgerbos Drift 45 Luviyo Bundzango Namaquasfontein 46 Heather Burger Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 47 Nita Butler Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 48 Cindy Came Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 49 Richard Came Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 50 Feliciano Cardoso Paarl 51 Sylvia Cetyway Elandsbaai 52 Simon Claasen Namaquasfontein Farm 53 Herman Claassen Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 54 Storm Clark Wilgerbosdrift Stud 55 C Coetzee Riviera 56 Rossouw Coetzee Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 57 SW Coetzee Riviera 58 Theunis Coetzee Jnr Verlorenvlei 59 Carl Combrinch Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 60 Kara Combrinch Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 61 Julian Conrad Stellenbosch 62 Mzoyolo Dashile Namaquasfontein 63 Abei Davids Elands Bay 64 Juliet De Brode Vereeniging 65 Van Zyl De Wet Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 66 Willie De Wet Elands Bay 67 Wanita Diamonds Elandsbaai 68 Charles Didcott Verlorenvlei 69 Naomi Diedericks Riviera 70 Randall Urven Diergaardt Wilgerbosdrift 71 Judith Digges Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 72 Judith Digges Elandsbaai 73 S Dinar Nuwerus Farm 74 Rene Dirks Elandsbaai 75 Wendx Dladla Elandsbaai 76 Adriaan Dryer Ilala Palms 77 Christiaan Du Plessis Hamerkop Farm 78 Irma Magdalena Du Plessis Hamerkop Farm 79 Oumie Du Toit Paarl 80 Pierre Du Toit Paarl 81 Michael Duffield Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 82 Pamela Duffield Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 60
83 Themba Dulozi Elandsbaai 84 Enver Duminy CEO Cape Town Tourism 85 Rob V Duncan Pomona Farm 86 Susan Enslin Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 87 Jean Fairhead Verlorenvlei 88 Tyrrel Fairhead Verlorenvlei 89 Lucinda Farmer Elandsbaai 90 Barbara Ferguson Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 91 Anna Sophia Fieland Wilgerbosdrift 92 Jacobus Fieland Wilgerbosdrift 93 Adolf Christiaan Fourie Het Kruis Distintion Building 94 Brendon Gideon Fourie Contractors 95 Petrick Fourie Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 96 Marco Frampton Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 97 Marco Frampton ? 98 Carl Cedric Franse Namaquasfontein 99 Denzel Fransman Valskuil 100 Jonathan Fransman Wilgerbosdrift 101 Rudi Fransman Eendekuil !Aman // AES Traditional 102 Marthinus Fredericks Authority 103 EF Freeman Boland Stud Thoroughbred Breeders 104 Eugene Frank Freeman Association 105 Roderick Freemantle Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 106 Carolene Fryer Elandsbaai 107 Shireen Galant Elandsbaai 108 Waldo Geldenhuys Case Farm 109 Simondre Goeieman Riviera 110 Abraham Goliath Riviera 111 Brendon Goliath Riviera 112 Sunita Leandra Goliath Riviera 113 Veronique Goliath Riviera 114 Carlos Gomes Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 115 Fiona Gomes Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 116 Julie Good Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 117 Dave Gordon Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 118 Simphiwe Gqalane Namaquasfontein 119 Franci Gresse Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 120 Patrick Griffiths Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 121 Hendrik Frederik Grobler Org de Rac 122 Asive Gwede Namaquasfontein 123 Abraham Johannes Hanekom Eenboom 124 Karen Deidre Harrison Indego Consulting 61
125 Abey Hartse Wilgerbosdrift 126 Lizette Hartse Wilgerbosdrift 127 Nosipho Hastag Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 128 Christopher Haw Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 129 Carla Hawkins Piketberg 130 Craig Hawkins Piketberg 131 Patrick Hayes Elandsbaai 132 D Hechter Vereeniging 133 Antjie Hector Elandsbaai 134 Ashlene Hector Elandsbaai 135 Gerrit Hector Sebulon Farm V/V 136 Oscar Hector Elandsbaai 137 Louis Heering Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 138 Hilde Henderson Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 139 Amelia Henning Verlorenvlei 140 Vuyowethda Hinana Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 141 A Hlegani Namaquasfontein Farm 142 Assandra Hlekani Moutonshoek 143 Ian Hollander Milnerton 144 Teresa Hollander Milnerton 145 Mildred Hugo Vereeniging 146 Kenneth Hutchings Cape Town 147 Petrick Huyes Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 148 A Huysamen Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 149 Bee Huysamen Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 150 Nicole Isaac Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 151 Christian Jabu Namaquasfontein 152 Jolien Jacobs Namaquasfontein 153 Joltin Jacobs Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 154 Jerome Jakobs Namaquasfontein 155 Joltin Jakobs Nuwerus 156 R James Wilgerbosdrift Stud 157 Sidney Shimane James Wilgerbosdrift 158 Francois Jan Eeden Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 159 Quinton Jansen Wilgerbosdrift 160 Ashelen Januarie Elandsbaai 161 Chrissie Januarie Wilgerbosdrift 162 Denecia Januarie Het Kruis 163 Jonathan Jerome Januarie Wilgerbosdrift 164 Ashelen Januatie Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 165 Marlene Johnson Moutonshoek 166 Pieter Johnson Namaquasfontein 167 Paul Jones Elandsbaai 168 Wilmarine Jonker Velddrif 169 Bianaca Jordaan Redelinghuys 62
170 Gert Johannes Jordaan Vanderbijlpark 171 A.J Joubert Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 172 Benedine Joubert Riviera 173 Caroline Julies Elandsbaai 174 Angeline Karolus Riviera 175 Henry Karolus Sebulon Farm V/V 176 Willem Johannes Karolus Wilgerbos Drift 177 Barendine Karools Riviera 178 Treintjie Karoulus Wilgerbosdrift 179 A T Kellett Gravity Sea Kayaking 180 Andrew Kellett Elands Bay 181 Marie-Louise Kellett Elands Bay 182 Ntobeko Khambi Nuwerus 183 Pheliswa Zelpha Khambi Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 184 Fisani Khuselo Namaquasfontein 185 Sheane Kinelo Karenpark 186 Armand Klaase Riviera 187 Delmari Klaase Elandsbaai 188 Piet Klaase Riviera 189 Andreas Klase Riviera 190 D Klase Riviera 191 Matthew Knoetser Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 192 Johanna Kraucamp Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 193 Suzaan Kritzinger-Klopper Sebilon 194 Abraham Kroucamp Nuwerus 195 Johanna Kroucamp Nuwerus 196 Josh Kumpers Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 197 Brin Kushner Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 198 Franscino Labuschagne Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 199 William Lamoor Elands Bay 200 Riaan Landman Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 201 Susan Landman Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 202 Desmond Langkilde Tourism Tattler 203 Derek Large Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 204 Glynis Myfanwy Laubscher Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 205 Glynis Myfanwy Laubscher Verlorenvlei 206 Johannes Laubscher Verlorenvlei 207 Anath Lavern Elandsbaai 208 Palesa Rose Lebitsa Nuwerus 209 Chris Leggatt Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 210 Zola Lemi Nuwerus 211 Roseline Lenee Elands Bay 212 Naas Leroux Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 213 Naas Lerouz Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 214 Elize Links Elandsbaai 63
215 Pierre Links Valskuil 216 Tessa Lombard Namaquasfontein 217 Anna Losper Goergap 218 Lorella Lottering Namaquasfontein 219 Alfie Louw Case Farm 220 Gezie Louw Case Farm 221 J A Louw Sebulon Farm V/V 222 Jane Frances Louw Vensterklip V/V 223 Lana Louw Verlorenvlei 224 Marius Louw Elandsbaai 225 Marthel Louw Case Farm 226 Ronell Louw Elandsbaai 227 Rozanne Louw Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 228 Elta Louwrens Dwarskersbos Farm 229 Chesrae Maarman Elandsbaai 230 Gideon Maarman Riviera 231 Johanna Maarman Riviera 232 M Maarman Riviera 233 S Maarman Riviera 234 Sophia Maarman Riviera 235 MP Mabatse Namaquasfontein Farm 236 J MacLachlan Paarl 237 Jo MacRobert Cape Town 238 Keneuwe Madikane Nuwerus 239 Rampopi David Maeke Namaquasfontein 240 Blossma Magas Elands Bay 241 Mandla Magesa Namaquasfontein 242 Nosicelo Majambe Elandsbaai 243 Yamkela Makele Elandsbaai 244 Blossma Maltas Elandsbaai 245 Adriaan Marais Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 246 Andries Johannes Marais Roosmarijn Guest House 247 Derek Markus Eendekuil 248 Matwa Masasphe Namaquasfontein 249 Miles Masterson Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 250 Cathy Matthews Wilgerbosdrift 251 Lachlan Matthews Lamberts Bay 252 Nomondo Maysisela Nuwerus 253 Nofemele Mbasa Nuwerus 254 Nopasika Mboniswa Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 255 Lucia Nomacesane Mbuweni Nuwerus Farm V/V 256 Sinektiaya Mbyru Elandsbaai 257 Justice Mdanisa Elandsbaai 258 Justice Mdanisa Elandsbaai 259 Vakakhulu Mdlelembe Namaquasfontein 64
260 Zensile Mdlelembe Namaquasfontein 261 Archie Mdlembe Namaquasfontein 262 Adiswo Mdunylwa Elandsbaai 263 Frank R Meaker Org de Rac Wine Estate 264 Dafaline Mentoor Het Kruis 265 Melissa Mentoor Riviera 266 Jenny Merritz Milnerton 267 Katrina Meulemans Verlorenvlei 268 Zandile Mgema Nuwerus Farm V/V 269 Lucas Mgemngu Moutonshoek 270 Sara Miggels Redelinghuys 271 Ronald Miller Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 272 Msindisi Mjola Namaquasfontein 273 Makore Pitirose Mobotse Namaquasfontein 274 Jaconette Mocke Leipoldtville 275 Emily Mofokeng Vereeniging 276 Diteko L Mogapedi Redelinghuys 277 Bokamosa Mokgchia Elandsbaai 278 Mpendilo Mona Namaquasfontein 279 Hermien Mong Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 280 Eduard Monk Riviera 281 Maurita Monk Riviera 282 Charles Moses Wilgerbosdrift 283 Nteboheleng Motaoi Nuwerus 284 Madele Mouton Brakfontein 285 Nicolaas Jacobus Mouton Spaarkloof 286 Neenakazi Mowatha Elandsbaai 287 Ntombikayise Mqumse Elandsbaai 288 Akhona Mrwebi Namaquasfontein 289 Wandisile Mthwesi Namaquasfontein 290 Sixolile Mtshemla Namaquasfontein 291 Lynette Munro Cape Town 292 Mark Munro Cape Town 293 Dr Megan Murgatroyd Cape Town 294 Geba Myoli Elandsbaai 295 Eden Mzondi Elandsbaai 296 Lucianomacesane Mzuweni Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 297 N Nadada Redelinghuys 298 Charmaine Ndike Elandsbaai 299 Johanna E Nel Wilgerbosdrift 300 Wynand Nel Wilgerbosdrift 301 Curtley Nero Elandsbaai 302 Nosipho Ngcaba DEA 303 L Ngemntu Namaquasfontein Farm 304 Aletta Ngemtu Namaquasfontein 65
305 N Nodade Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 306 Sisanda Nofemele Nuwerus 307 Phumeza Noganydti Elandsbaai 308 Funeka Nogenge Elands Bay 309 N Nowatha Elands Bay 310 Siphosenkosi Ntunze Namaquasfontein 311 Zoleka Nyani Elandsbaai 312 Thabisa Nyeka Elandsbaai 313 Jaco Ockhuis Namaquasfontein 314 Nicolaas Ockhuis Namaquasfontein 315 A October Riviera 316 Carel October Riviera 317 Nosakhele Oebisa Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 318 Elzette Oktober Riviera 319 Jacob Oktober Riviera 320 Magriet Oktober Riviera 321 Michael Oosthuizen Elands Bay 322 Chris Oosthuyzen Kempton Park 323 Mariehta Opperman Namaquasfontein 324 Liz O'Shaughnessy Yzerfontein 325 Victore Pas Neves Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 326 Andre Pastoor Namaquasfontein 327 Karools Paulse Namaquasfontein 328 Lydia Pedro Elandsbaai 329 Pr Nigel Penn Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 330 Mandla Phike Namaquasfontein 331 Dana Pieters Riviera 332 Delizia Pieters Riviera 333 Jan Pieters Riviera 334 Sophia Pieters Riviera 335 Annika Plaatjies Riviera 336 Hester Helena Potgieter Verlorenvlei 337 Roderick Potgieter Wonderboompoort 338 Roerick Potgieter Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 339 Zodwa Potsone Elands Bay 340 Isabel Pretorious Mareletapark 341 Sandra Prinsloo Verlorenvlei 342 Hans Pruter Redelinghuys 343 Sonja Pruter Redelinghuys 344 Andrea Pulfrich Mountain Mist 345 Bomikazi Rabela Nuwerus Farm 346 Andiswa Rabele Nuwerus Farm 347 Nosakhele Rebisa Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 348 Warwick Renosi Bush Hill Stud 349 Alistair Roberts Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 66
350 Danie Roox Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 351 Stephan Roox Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 352 Mecala Sabbat Wilgerbosdrift 353 Warren Rodney Sabbat Wilgerbosdrift 354 J Sakati Wilgerbosdrift 355 Mgaiysa Sanis Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 356 Maria Magdalena Saroon Namaquasfontein 357 Paulene Schaffers Elandsbaai 358 Sonja Schmidlin Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 359 Hezmuth Schmitt Velddrif 360 AR Schnetler Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 361 Herma Schoeman Eendekuil 362 M Scholtz Riviera 363 Maureen September Riviera 364 Monique September Riviera 365 Pam Shaw Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 366 Ben Sheard Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 367 Garry Sheard Cape Town 368 Liz Sheard Cape Town 369 Martin Sheard Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 370 Jeremy Shelton Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 371 Willem Johannes Sias Wilgerbos Drift 372 Sivuile Siphezi Nuwerus 373 Miya Siyabulela Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 374 Mtya Siyabulela Nuwerus 375 Karel Skirmaans Namaquasfontein 376 Gregory Smal Elandsbaai 377 Adriaan Louw Smit Riviera 378 Anna Smit Riviera 379 CE Smit Verlorenvlei 380 Damon Smit Riviera 381 Gerald Smit Riviera 382 Gert Smit Riviera 383 Hanna Smit Riviera 384 Hendrik Petrus Smit Riviera Karookop (Wilgenhoutdrift 385 Jacobus Smit 48/2) 386 JJ Smit Riviera Krom Antonies Water Users 387 JJ Smit Association 388 Johanna Smit Riviera 389 Louise-Mari Smit Riviera 390 Petronella Smit Riviera 391 Risda Smit Riviera 392 W Smit Riviera 67
393 Wendy Janet Smit Namaquasfontein 394 Albertus Smith Sebulon Farm V/V 395 Elton Smith Redelinghuys 396 Lorettu Smith Elandsbaai 397 Helen Smuts Landrug Farm 398 Chris Snelling Cape Town 399 Angeline Snyers Redelinghuys 400 Angeline Snyers Redelinghuys 401 Busisiwe Songelwa Elandsbaai 402 Jennifer Sorrell Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 403 Henco Spandiel Elandsbaai 404 Gerrit Springfeld Riviera 405 Barend Springfield Namaquasfontein 406 Ivan Springfield Riviera 407 Griet Springveld Riviera 408 Senobia Springveld Riviera 409 Catharina Stafel Nuwerus Farm 410 Willem Stafel Nuwerus 411 Ivan Stander Elandsbaai 412 Jeresa Stander Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 413 Ruwón Stander Elandsbaai 414 Stephanus Stephan Stephan & Seun Boerdery 415 H F Steyn Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 416 Liza Steyn West Coast Paints 417 David Storm Namaquasfontein 418 Felicity Strange Verlorenvlei 419 Felicity Strohfeldt Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 420 Caroline Suries Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 421 James Suter Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 422 G W Swanepoel Paarl 423 Loudeac Swanepoel Namaquasfontein 424 Randall Swanepoel Sebulon Farm V/V 425 Maria Swart Riviera 426 Andreas Swarts Namaquasfontein 427 Andries Swarts Namaquasfontein 428 Barendine Swarts Riviera 429 Elroy Swarts Elandsbaai 430 Gerald Swarts Namaquasfontein 431 Jan Swarts Riviera 432 Maria Swarts Riviera 433 Sophia Swarts Riviera 434 Devon Swingburn Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 435 Magrieta Syster Riviera 436 Ricardo Talmallkies Elands Bay 437 Neliswa Tanti Nuwerus Farm V/V 68
438 Sandisile Tayi Elands Bay 439 Dina Taylor Elandsbaai 440 Elwida Taylor Redelinghuys 441 Gert Taylor Elands Bay 442 Lauren Taylor Elands Bay 443 Nick Taylor Verlorenvlei 444 Nicolas Andrew Taylor Elandsbaai 445 Thozeme Taylor Elandsbaai 446 Hendrik Ten Hoorn Boer Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 447 Nkolongwane Thembani Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 448 David Thomson Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 449 Johan Tieties Wilgerbosdrift 450 Abigail Titus Redelinghuys 451 Niklaas Toentjes Riviera 452 N Tomboxolompayxpoli Elandsbaai 453 Martin Treadaway St Helena Bay 454 Elvis Tshohemi Namaquasfontein 455 Nomalarsa Uiti Nuwerus 456 Taylor Uys Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 457 Eldon Van Aswegen Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 458 W Van den Berg Riviera 459 David Van Den Bos Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 460 Jacqui Van der Merwe Namaquasfontein 461 Dr Mark Van der Velde Elandsbaai 462 Maryna Van Der Walt Erasmusrand 463 Monique Van Der Westhuizen Elandsbaai 464 Sandra Van Der Westhuizen Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 465 Francois Van Eeden Paarl 466 Debora Van Litsenborgh Verlorenvlei 467 Francois Van Litsenborgh Verlorenvlei Velddrif Chamber of 468 Chris Van Niekerk Commerce Jan Johannes 469 Christoffel Van Niekerk Oude Muur 470 Derine Van Rooyen Namaquasfontein 471 Marina Van Schalkwyk Verlorenvlei 472 Jan C Van Schoor Redelinghuys 473 Tian Van Tonder Paarl 474 Abraham Van Wyk Elandsbaai 475 Andre Van WYk Elandsbaai 476 Catharine Van Wyk Elandsbaai 477 IJ Van Wyk Riviera 478 Jerome Van Wyk Redelinghuys 479 Luzana Van Wyk Elandsbaai 480 Marie Van Wyk Verlorenvlei 69
481 Moreeda Van Wyk Riviera 482 Teshwin Van Wyk Elandsbaai 483 Johan Abraham Van Zyl Piekenierskloof Vrugte 484 Adri Venter Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 485 Marais Venter Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 486 Marais Venter ? 487 Warren Vercuiel Elandsbaai 488 Elmarie Vermeulen Aurora 489 Nico Vermeulen Velddrif 490 Willene Vermeulen Velddrif 491 Coen Visser Piketberg 492 Emi Visser Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 493 Minette Visser Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 494 Frans Vlok Valskuil 495 Monique Vlok Valskuil 496 Francois Von Litsenborgh Von Litsenborgh 497 Elizabeth Vyfer Elandsbaai 498 Hester Vyfer Elandsbaai 499 Hester Vyfer Elandsbaai 500 Annushka Vyver Elandsbaai 501 Andrew Watson Stellenbosch 502 Simeon Watson Verlorenvlei 503 Leonard Watts Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 504 Leonard Watts Elandsbaai 505 Troop Watts Elandsbaai 506 Charles Welgemoed Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 507 Glenda White Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 508 Grenville White Redelinghuys 509 Jan White Redelinghuys 510 Johanna White ? 511 Nolene White Redelinghuys 512 Hendrik CF Whiteman Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 513 Gerhard Wiese Redelinghuys 514 Karin Wiese Redelinghuys 515 Jerome Willemse Riviera 516 M Willemse Riviera 517 Robert Ernst Wilshire Wilgerbosdrift 518 A T Winder Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 519 Melinda Winfield Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 520 Michael Francis Winter Geologist, Durbanville 521 Adrian Wise Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 522 Gert Witbooi Sebulon Farm V/V 523 Linford Leroi Witbooi Het Kruis 524 Derek Wollaston Cape Town 525 Cameron Wyk Elandsbaai 70
526 Collen Yalwa Namaquasfontein 527 John Yeld Cape Town 528 Izette Young Parklands 529 John Zeni Vanderbijlpark 530 Debby Zuanni Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei 531 Hugo Zuanni Moutonshoek/Verlorenvlei